5 ms·

I feel that mass surveillance for law enforcement will not work until public, judiciary and law accept that Police like all people make errors. It shouldn't be

I feel that mass surveillance for law enforcement will not work until public, judiciary and law accept that Police like all people make errors. It shouldn't be a herculean task to reverse a wrongful arrest or file charges for a use of excessive force by law enforcement officer. Courts should ultimately decide if the officer did this out of malice/incompetence and penalize accordingly.

javajosh 6y ago
The American public is already too biased in favor of LEO, to judge by trial outcomes. Law enforcement should be held to a higher, not lower standard than ordinary people. That will make the job tougher, but if it that makes it too tough for an individual, they don't have to work there.
- Zigurd 6y ago
  I experienced this myself at a DUI trial where the sole prosecution witness, a cop, clearly lied about being run off the road by the defendant, and other aspects of the case. Defence counsel demonstrated that the stretch or road where the cop claimed to have been run off the road had no shoulders, had guard rails close to the road, and had trees hemming-in the road. I ended up hanging the jury. My fellow jurors were frighteningly willing to unquestioningly accept a patent liar's testimony because he is a cop.
  - pstuart 6y ago
    Thank you.
  - millzlane 6y ago
    Makes sense why I was dismissed from jury duty in Baltimore. One of the questions I was asked was if I would believe a police officer's testimony to be true just because he was a cop.
    - ultrarunner 6y ago
      Could you elaborate on the question asked and how you answered? While I wouldn't exactly be surprised, the idea that a lawyer for either side could just blatantly fish for sympathetic jurors seems like a wild miscarriage of due process. It doesn't seem clearly morally distinct from e.g. simply paying jurors to convict.
      - pfranz 6y ago
        I'm pretty sure this is an incredibly common subject during voir dire. While this is probably more on the benign side of questioning, I remember being asked if anyone had negative interactions with law enforcement. I'm less confident, but I'm pretty sure followup questions were more specific to trusting law enforcement's testimony.
      - plorkyeran 6y ago
        I've been through multiple jury selections where they've explicitly asked if I'd be willing to convict based solely on the word of a police officer, with both lawyers seemingly expecting the answer to be yes.

javajosh 6y ago

The American public is already too biased in favor of LEO, to judge by trial outcomes. Law enforcement should be held to a higher, not lower standard than ordinary people. That will make the job tougher, but if it that makes it too tough for an individual, they don't have to work there.

Zigurd 6y ago
I experienced this myself at a DUI trial where the sole prosecution witness, a cop, clearly lied about being run off the road by the defendant, and other aspects of the case. Defence counsel demonstrated that the stretch or road where the cop claimed to have been run off the road had no shoulders, had guard rails close to the road, and had trees hemming-in the road. I ended up hanging the jury. My fellow jurors were frighteningly willing to unquestioningly accept a patent liar's testimony because he is a cop.
- pstuart 6y ago
  Thank you.
- millzlane 6y ago
  Makes sense why I was dismissed from jury duty in Baltimore. One of the questions I was asked was if I would believe a police officer's testimony to be true just because he was a cop.
  - ultrarunner 6y ago
    Could you elaborate on the question asked and how you answered? While I wouldn't exactly be surprised, the idea that a lawyer for either side could just blatantly fish for sympathetic jurors seems like a wild miscarriage of due process. It doesn't seem clearly morally distinct from e.g. simply paying jurors to convict.
    - pfranz 6y ago
      I'm pretty sure this is an incredibly common subject during voir dire. While this is probably more on the benign side of questioning, I remember being asked if anyone had negative interactions with law enforcement. I'm less confident, but I'm pretty sure followup questions were more specific to trusting law enforcement's testimony.
    - plorkyeran 6y ago
      I've been through multiple jury selections where they've explicitly asked if I'd be willing to convict based solely on the word of a police officer, with both lawyers seemingly expecting the answer to be yes.